The Rachel Maddow Show - July 6 — Audio Only

[0:00] Good evening, Chris. Thank you very much, my friend. I actually, if you don't mind, [0:04] if you do not have to rush off, can I just, can I interview you a little bit about [0:09] the Graham Plattner news? I wanted to know, I mean, I saw your coverage of it [0:13] over the course of this last hour, but what do you think is going to happen? [0:18] It seems untenable for me that he will continue. Although I'm, you know, ultimately, [0:23] we should note that the way this works is that it is his decision. He won the, [0:27] he won the nomination. So no one can force him out. Obviously, all the signals are being sent [0:33] from, I think, anyone that has any influence that they want him to drop out. I think that's [0:37] a combination of a political calculation, probably first and foremost, that he is too [0:42] damaged politically to beat Susan Collins or be the best candidate. And I think also moral [0:47] calculation that the allegation here is the most serious allegation of everything that has been said [0:53] about him. And, and I think because of the way that the individual making the allegation presented [1:00] it, how manifestly, obviously tortured she was, cross pressured about politics, that that is also [1:06] having a resonance with people. But again, he, you know, he did win the primary and a lot of people [1:12] didn't run in that race because they thought it was gonna be really hard to beat Susan Collins and [1:15] they ran the gubernatorial race, which is the context for all of this of why in some ways it has gotten [1:20] at this point. Yeah. And I was just, I mean, as soon as I read the news today, I mean, there was [1:26] this sort of rumblings as he was had canceled a bunch of events, including Independence Day events [1:32] and his, his campaign schedule kind of blew up. So it kind of felt like something was coming. [1:37] And then as soon as the Politico piece came out, I just immediately was thinking about your, [1:42] you know, seminal interview with him after the last round of very serious allegations against him, [1:48] which he denied, like he denies these. And I mean, having that conversation with him in that [1:56] incredibly intense moment right around the primary, what was your, I guess, what was your take on like, [2:04] is this the kind of guy that no matter what is said about him, no matter how big the bomb is that [2:09] goes off, he is committed to never apologizing and never getting out? Or did you feel like, [2:14] you know, it matters on what the revelation is? I think, I think I came away with the latter. I also [2:20] didn't feel we played this in my show, but there were, there was a few different ways. I asked two [2:26] different ways of, is there anything else out there? Um, yes. And I'll just say that I didn't, [2:34] he basically said no, but I didn't necessarily feel like that. No was a hundred percent convincing. [2:40] Again, this has been just like reading body language and making a personal judgment. It's not [2:45] because I have inside knowledge, just the way that you react. Um, that, that no felt like [2:50] a little wobbly. I'll just say it. I think other people who heard the no felt like it was a little [2:56] wobbly too. And I think, you know, I think that's, uh, that's obviously borne out. Yeah. And I will [3:04] tell you just a little, I, when you did that interview, I listened to it live on Sirius XM as it [3:11] was happening. And on that point, which you were very insistent with him on, I was like, I, that [3:18] doesn't sound like a categorical clear no. And I went home and watched the tape version of you do it. [3:26] Cause I wanted to see him give his answer too. And that was my take too. And again, you know, [3:30] reading body language and reading like somebody's personal affect on things like that is the world's [3:35] most unscientific assessment. But I, I think you and I had the same, I at least had the same [3:41] inkling that you did there. And the thing I would say adjacent to that is that like voters are allowed [3:46] to do that too. I mean, that's part of it too, right? So there's like the, the, the question of [3:50] credibility, which that you do believe him, but there's also like, this is a person who's going to [3:53] run for office and which he's going to say things to voters and they are going to believe him or not [3:55] believe him. And there is going to be a real credibility challenge. Uh, I think going forward, [4:02] if he stays in the race, I think that's, that's, that's intensified. Um, and that's a political [4:06] reality because, you know, voting for a candidate is not, it's not the jury room and it's not like a, [4:12] it's, you know, a, a test, right? Like the voters, voters get to make decisions based on all kinds [4:19] of stuff that they're, that they're getting in the atmosphere or getting off your body language or [4:23] voice. And that's just kind of the way it works. That's right. And, and, and perhaps rightfully so, [4:28] since they're going to have to decide whether or not you're a trust, trustworthy, [4:31] literal representative of them and their needs, um, in Washington. Well, um, as I said, we're [4:37] going to be keep watching this all night, obviously a developing story, very, uh, appreciative of the [4:41] chance to talk to you about it, my friend. Thank you. Thank you, Rachel. Thanks. [4:45] And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. Um, so there are a lot of developing stories [4:50] that we've got eyes on tonight. Um, and even though, you know, this is July and arguably this Monday [4:58] night, you know, like still kind of feels like the holiday weekend. It turns out there really is a lot [5:02] of news unfolding right now, both tonight and things that look like they're going to be developing. [5:07] And then they're in the next couple of days. Um, as I was just discussing with Chris, the, [5:13] the U S Senate race in Maine really did run into a brick wall this afternoon. As you know, [5:20] Democrats are expected to do well in the midterms this year. That said in the Senate, [5:24] the map is pretty stacked against the Democrats this cycle, sort of just luck of the draw in order [5:31] to win control of the Senate. Democrats are going to need to defend all 13 seats that are up that [5:36] are currently held by Democrats. They need to hold all 13 of those and they need to flip four Senate [5:43] seats that are currently held by Republicans. So they are instead held by Democrats. That is a really [5:49] tall order in terms of democratic chances for taking the Senate, even in a year when the [5:54] Democrats, I think rightfully have wind in their sails and the Republicans are on their heels. [5:59] I mean, Democrats have a, I think a very good shot of, of taking what is now a Republican seat [6:04] in North Carolina, uh, with former democratic North Carolina governor Roy Cooper, who was just [6:09] on tonight with Chris. Um, that's one Cooper is a fantastic candidate. And I think Democrats feel [6:14] great about that seat. Uh, he's going to need a lot of support and a lot of money and a lot of good [6:19] campaign strategy to get there, but he can get there. I think Democrats also have a very good shot [6:23] in Ohio, uh, with the sort of beloved and very popular democratic Senator Sherrod Brown. I think [6:30] Democrats have got a pretty good shot in Texas of all places with this democratic phenom, James [6:36] Tallarico running against an odious, odious Republican candidate who's basically got one foot in jail [6:44] and one foot on the dais. I think Democrats have good, a good shot in Alaska with Democrat Mary [6:49] Peltola. I think Democrats have a good shot in Iowa with Democrat Josh Turek, but one place Democrats [6:55] ought to have a great shot is in Maine where Susan Collins has been a Republican Senator disappointing [7:03] the people of Maine since the paleolithic era. Maine democratic governor, Janet Mills put her hand up [7:10] to run against Susan Collins, but frankly, Janet Mills was pretty easily trounced in the democratic [7:18] primary by this charismatic political outsider combat veteran and Maine oyster farmer, um, or Maine [7:25] oyster man, um, Graham Platner after, after weathering more than your average candidate share of scandals [7:33] and unflattering accusations and revelations. Graham Platner insisted, including in a seminal interview [7:40] with Chris Hayes that they, there was no chance he was going to drop out. Um, his supporters in Maine [7:45] clearly stayed committed to him through all of those waves of scandal and accusation. That said, his broader [7:53] support outside his base was not as evident. Um, he has not been polling particularly well of late against [8:01] Susan Collins, especially for a state that Trump lost by nearly seven points. But then today there was this [8:08] thunderclap report in Politico, uh, later followed by an interview with CNN, uh, from a woman who says [8:14] that Graham Platner raped her in 2021. Platner has denied the allegation, but he also says he's going to [8:22] take time to reflect on his, uh, on the best path forward for his campaign. Um, since then things have [8:31] been falling apart for his campaign. Prominent democratic endorsers of Graham Platner, like Congressman [8:36] Ro Khanna of California, Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona, uh, today both pulled their support from Graham [8:42] Platner, the very influential progressive democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Tonight, [8:48] she also called on Graham Platner to withdraw from the race. The main democratic party this afternoon [8:54] called on him to withdraw as the democratic party's nominee for Senate. Now the democratic Senate campaign [9:00] committee has done the same. This is the Senate committee for the national democratic party, [9:06] which helps candidates helps democratic candidates in all Senate races in the country. They're now [9:10] saying that if Graham Platner remains the nominee in Maine, the democratic party Senate campaign arm [9:16] will no longer provide any support to the campaign in the state of Maine. Now on top of that, [9:23] just in the last few minutes, the chairman of the national democratic party, Ken Martin, [9:28] has also said that it is time for Graham Platner to end his campaign. Now under state law in Maine, [9:37] as long as Graham Platner withdraws from the race, uh, within a week from now, um, as long as he [9:44] withdraws by July 13th, one week from today, the state democratic party can choose someone to replace him. [9:51] They'll have another two weeks. They'll have until July 27th to do so. All that means is that this is [9:59] a story that's going to resolve quickly one way or the other. I think in normal times, [10:04] 99 out of a hundred political observers and probably 99 out of a hundred just regular people [10:10] would say that all signs point to the exit, um, tonight for this candidate, Graham Platner. [10:17] That said, when's the last time it felt to you like we were living in normal times? [10:22] These are not normal times and I'm not making any predictions as to what is going to happen, but I will [10:27] tell you honestly that the wheels are coming off, including some important financial considerations [10:32] to take into effect for the future of the Platner campaign should he choose to stick it out. [10:36] So we're watching that tonight. Also, also in the Senate, um, there's going to have to be some [10:45] kind of resolution at some point over the circumstances, the sad circumstances, [10:51] surrounding the former Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, the senator from Kentucky. As you [10:56] have no doubt heard, Senator McConnell was hospitalized three weeks ago. Um, emergency services call from [11:04] that date reflect the fact that, uh, emergency personnel, emergency medical personnel that morning [11:11] treated a person at Mitch McConnell's address who was said in those emergency medical service calls, [11:17] the person was said to be unconscious. Emergency medical personnel described performing CPR [11:24] on that unconscious person. Nobody has seen Senator Mitch McConnell since. [11:30] For the second week in a row now, his office has put out a statement saying Senator McConnell appreciates [11:35] the outpouring of support he's receiving while he continues his recovery in the hospital. [11:42] But they said that last week. They're saying that again today. And that's all they're saying. [11:47] Um, and if that makes you immediately start wondering what they're not saying, [11:52] the headline tonight at Huffington Post quite bluntly sums up what is missing from that statement. [11:57] Headline, Mitch McConnell's office won't confirm if he's conscious. I mean, to be fair, [12:06] that statement they keep putting out says that the senator appreciates the support he's getting. [12:12] Does that imply consciousness? Is it weird that we have to figure that out? [12:20] So there's going to have to be some kind of further clarification there as well. Not, [12:24] not only for the larger consequences, but for the people of Kentucky who should have two senators [12:29] representing them in Washington, particularly at a time as fraught as this. So we're watching that. [12:37] President Trump this hour is flying off to Turkey for the NATO summit. Now, while he's there, [12:44] we are sort of watching two expected storylines, two very, very different, but expected storylines. [12:53] The first, of course, the really, really unnerving one is that, of course, we're expecting Trump to [13:01] try to blow up NATO while he's there as best he can. You know, before the White House said anything [13:06] about it, we learned this weekend from a Kremlin announcement that Donald Trump apparently had an [13:13] hour and a half long call with Vladimir Putin this weekend. That's apparently how the president of the [13:19] United States celebrated the 250th anniversary of the founding of our country. He had a long undisclosed [13:26] secret phone call with a foreign dictator he has weird slavish devotion to and who helped him get [13:31] elected to the White House in the first place. Again, it was the Kremlin that reported first on the [13:37] existence of the call. After the Kremlin reported that the call had happened, not the White House, we had to hear it from Russia, [13:43] Russia. Trump was then asked about it by reporters, and he did then admit today that he'd had the call [13:50] with Putin right before heading off to NATO. Huh. Who called who? So now, based on past experience with [14:00] Donald Trump and his conversations with Vladimir Putin, which he often doesn't admit to having, [14:08] because of that past experience of how he has behaved after speaking with Putin in the past, [14:12] everybody is now expecting Trump to make some bizarre announcement or expecting him to pick some [14:19] bizarre fight at the NATO summit that reflects whatever it is Putin last said to him before he [14:25] left, right? It'll be something that Trump's never talked about before, never shown any native interest [14:31] or understanding of whatsoever. It'll be some Russian talking point that will then become Trump's, [14:36] you know, cause at this NATO summit. At least if past is any prologue, if he behaves [14:41] at this summit like he has in past events like this. Also, just for your situational awareness on this [14:48] one, this comes amid somewhat panicked reporting sourced from European intelligence agencies that [14:54] the other countries in NATO are expecting Putin soon to try some kind of military incursion or even a [15:03] full-blown military attack against one of the European countries in NATO. Just to test it. Test it. [15:13] Just dem- try to demonstrate what everybody already suspects to be the case, which is that Trump [15:19] won't make good on our treaty obligation to defend one of our NATO allies as long as that ally has been [15:25] attacked by Russia. Any such attack or incursion and non-response from the United States would [15:35] effectively end NATO once and for all, right? The whole point of NATO is that the NATO countries [15:42] commit to defending one another if any of them is attacked, right? If Trump breaks that commitment, [15:50] that will end NATO effectively, which of course is Vladimir Putin's fondest dream. [15:55] So that is the loud static you're hearing. That's the sort of ominous portent that looms over Trump's [16:02] trip to this NATO summit in Turkey, which he is leaving for right now as we speak. [16:06] Now, I said there's two things that we're watching for, though, for this Trump trip to the NATO summit. [16:14] We've got this thing with him just talking to Putin and, oh God, what's he going to bring up now? [16:18] What's he going to do? That's one. [16:21] The second thing, though, sort of happily, is a totally different type of thing that we are also [16:26] expecting from Trump while he is at this NATO summit in Turkey. And that is that just by happenstance, [16:34] there's a very good chance that while Donald Trump is at the NATO summit in Turkey, [16:40] he is going to have to pay Eugene Carroll over five million dollars. [16:45] This stems from the unanimous jury verdict against Trump in a 2023 civil trial [16:50] in which a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse of Eugene Carroll. [16:55] Trump has now lost his appeals on that matter all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, [17:00] which has neglected to bail him out on this. And so he has kind of run out of appeals and run out [17:06] of time. And it may be that Trump needs to step out for a moment from his day job of destroying the [17:13] post-World War II Western-led international order in order to send more than five million dollars of [17:19] his own money to a woman whom a jury says he sexually abused. Other than that, sir, how was your trip? [17:28] So there's a lot of different types of stories that we are watching tonight, [17:31] a lot that we are expecting to develop over tonight and into the next couple of days, [17:36] even as we come out of this 250th anniversary, Fourth of July weekend. [17:41] And, you know, as we as we headed toward this big 250th anniversary, there was a lot understandably, [17:47] there's a lot of looking back at how we as a country had handled previous big number anniversaries [17:54] of our country's founding. So, for example, there was a lot of looking back this year at 1976 [18:01] and all the groovy, groovy, psychedelic ways we celebrated the bicentennial, the 200-year anniversary [18:08] in 1976. And actually, if you look back at the press from 1976, you will find that back then, [18:18] 50 years ago, people, Americans, the press, commentators, people were also looking back [18:24] at previous big number celebrations. People in 1976 were looking back at 1876, the 100-year celebration, [18:33] the centennial in 1876, when we celebrated 100 years as a country by having a big World's Fair [18:40] in Philadelphia. We also looked back at the 150th-year celebration, which was in 1926, [18:47] where this lady in Louisiana apparently got a souvenir coconut, which she held on to for 50 years. [18:56] So, she got the souvenir coconut at the sesquicentennial in 1926, and she was able to proudly [19:04] display it to her local paper at the bicentennial in 1976. The coconut lasted. So, I mean, in ways big [19:16] and small, you do what you can. We don't always do a great job at these celebrations. [19:22] Jill Lepore, the historian who writes at The New Yorker, wrote recently about the 1926, [19:28] the sesquicentennial, the 150-year celebration, where apparently they initially tried to give [19:33] the Ku Klux Klan a permit for a Klon vocation. Literally, they tried to permit a huge KKK parade [19:42] at the sesquicentennial, at the 150th anniversary of the country's founding, [19:47] uh, before somebody finally thought better of the idea. We do not always do a great job with these [19:52] kinds of big number, big anniversary celebrations of the founding of the United States of America. [20:00] But honestly, our generation is the one who had to figure out how to celebrate the 250th. [20:04] We just had the 250th. What is anybody even going to be able to say we did for this one? [20:12] I mean, honestly, if like in all previous big number anniversaries, we look back at the last one [20:19] to say like, oh, this is how they dealt with it last time. When, when, when generations hence [20:25] look back on this one, the 250th, what will they be able to say we did as a country? [20:30] I mean, Trump gave a speech for the 250th anniversary. He literally called it a Trump rally. [20:39] And at the event there was lightning and his followers reportedly argued with the secret [20:44] service and police and refused their orders to leave because they didn't want to leave because [20:48] they thought it was quote liberals in the weather service who were conspiring against them. [20:54] It wasn't actually the weather. It was liberal weather. And, and Trump tried to put together [21:00] something he called a state fair, but it was sad and petty and underwhelming and nobody really came. [21:07] And the boogie woogie bugle boy dancers on Trump's weird national mall stage were nearly killed by a big [21:14] gold piece of the stage falling down on them while they were rehearsing. [21:18] I mean, yes, there, there was a big military flyover and a lot of fireworks, but that was kind of it. [21:28] That proved to be the only thing the federal government of the United States was capable [21:33] of pulling off for its 250th birthday. And like I said, these anniversaries haven't always been great. [21:44] And maybe they were, they weren't going to be great no matter who was in the White House, [21:47] but for the kind of leader we have in the White House right now, for this kind of a guy, [21:50] this kind of an anniversary was never going to be his thing, right? It was always going to be too [21:55] much about the country and not enough about him. He is the only person to whom things actually seem [22:01] real, right? Or seem important. If it's not about him, he doesn't really care. So really, [22:05] the only things he even tried to do for this huge anniversary were things that were about him. [22:12] I mean, so here's a federal government that spent the 250th anniversary of its founding, [22:17] you know, holding a Trump rally and rolling out a passport with Trump's face on it [22:23] and rolling out a Trump gold coin and rolling out Trump signed $100 bills. [22:28] And they want to do a Trump picture $250 bill. And they did this Trump state fair with a hoopty, [22:37] fall down staple gunned wooden model of the arch that he wants to build for himself. Who do you [22:43] want this arch to honor? What do you want this arch to honor, Mr. President? I want it to honor me. [22:48] Oh, and we also had a Trump visit to Mount Rushmore. And why did he go to Mount Rushmore? Because he [22:55] wants to put his own face on Mount Rushmore. I mean, none of these things are even about the country, [23:01] let alone for it. I mean, 49 years and 363 days from now, if and when we hit our 300th anniversary [23:13] as a country. I'm telling you, whatever media we have, then we'll be looking back at us. We'll be [23:20] looking at what we did this weekend. They'll be looking back at this 250th anniversary. What are we [23:27] going to say we did? It's just going to look like this feckless, failed, truly laughable effort by a, [23:36] you know, cult of personality, would-be dictator, failed extremist president who is more unpopular [23:43] than just about any other president in the history of the presidency, but who is nevertheless trying [23:47] to turn the country into Trumpistan. And that is how he spent the 250th commemoration of our founding [23:53] as a nation. I mean, the one real national story we can happily tell about this anniversary will be [24:05] that, by another coincidence of the calendar, one of the truly, honestly great things that has been [24:13] happening all over the country at this time, one of the things that happened all over our country, [24:19] specifically on our 250th birthday, is that people from all over the world have been here, [24:27] right now, to celebrate the World Cup. Something that Trump sort of hadn't really acknowledged at [24:34] all, maybe didn't even know was happening because it wasn't about him, until, until the day after the [24:42] 4th of July, when we learned that Trump has decided to foul that up to. He's now admitted that he waded [24:50] into it, despite the fact that he says he didn't even know what a red card was, doesn't watch soccer, [24:54] doesn't understand it. He nevertheless called the International Football Association, FIFA, [24:59] that administers the World Cup. And so now we have bleed over from the failed and ridiculous [25:05] Trumpiness of everything he touches into what was otherwise a legitimately real and good thing. [25:13] I mean, everything he touches turns to not gold. And so now what was otherwise kind of [25:23] this unequivocally good thing, the triumph of the sort of good vibes World Cup unfolding all across our [25:29] country, despite everything else our government has been screwing up under Trump. Now, instead, [25:35] that too becomes Trumpified. That instead becomes an instant worldwide global outrage and scandal [25:44] about Trump admitting that he has tried to corrupt the World Cup by wading in and getting FIFA to [25:50] overturn a red card against an important American player. It should also be noted that Trump commemorated [26:02] the 250th anniversary of the nation's founding this weekend by doing one extra thing that wasn't on [26:07] the agenda, but he did nonetheless. He got online and posted a racist fake image of former President [26:15] Barack Obama and Michelle Obama in a fake Air Force One that was all covered in graffiti. As the [26:21] Associated Press delicately noted, quote, [26:23] The use of graffiti is a coded message to remind people of crime and urban decay and has been used [26:29] in racist messaging against black people in the past. The AP also noting that this latest racist post [26:36] from Trump for Independence Day weekend comes after, quote, another racist post by President Trump that [26:42] showed the couple as primates in a jungle. Happy 250th anniversary. Happy 250th America. How far we've come. [26:54] We at least turned down the Klan permit ultimately in 1926. That said, you know what? We are not our [27:06] government, right? Our country is a heck of a lot more than whoever's botching things and [27:10] disgracing themselves in the White House. I will just note that the Tulsa, Oklahoma chapter of [27:16] Indivisible marked Independence Day this weekend by spelling out 2547, 2547, as in, [27:24] used the 25th Amendment to declare Trump unfit and incompetent and remove him from office. [27:30] 2547 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. They did that in 96 degree heat this weekend. [27:36] It felt like about that in Minneapolis on Independence Day as well, [27:41] where people held a mock funeral through the streets, commemorating, [27:46] carrying coffins to commemorate the people who have died in Trump's immigrant prisons since he has been [27:51] back in office. Even though Trump and his top campaign donor Elon Musk looted the money that [27:59] Congress had set aside for small towns and local communities to mark the 250th anniversary their [28:04] own way, people all around the country have nevertheless still found cool free ways [28:09] to mark the anniversary. You know, the anniversary that we're technically celebrating is the signing of [28:14] the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. The declaration was not actually read out loud to [28:21] the people until four days later, July 8th, 6 p.m. on July 8th, 1776. That's when the people of the [28:30] United States of America were essentially given the declaration that had been signed on their behalf. [28:36] To commemorate that, at 6 p.m. Eastern time, all over the country, in every time zone, in every state in [28:44] the country, at 6 p.m. Eastern time, this Wednesday, July 8th, people all over the country will [28:51] simultaneously read aloud the words of the Declaration of Independence to commemorate the [28:56] first time that we, the people, heard it. There's a lot going on in the news right now. [29:03] We're going to get some late-breaking reporting on the debacle of Trump corrupting the World Cup. [29:10] We are watching this Graham Plattner story and the Mitch McConnell story as well. We're going to get [29:14] some expert help in just a moment on the truly nuts thing that Trump just did about guns. I use the [29:21] word nuts advisedly here. Honestly, if you have not heard about this yet, you are not going to believe [29:26] it. But take heart. I mean, this 250th birthday for our country, keep in mind, first of all, that it's all [29:35] year. The birthday is all year, so Trump blowing it on the 4th itself says more about him than it does [29:42] about us. We have all year to make it up any way we want to. Most importantly, though, it really is for [29:49] all of us to celebrate the way we see fit, the way we will want to be proud of, the way we will want our [29:55] generation to be remembered 50 years from now, 100 years from now, God willing, 250 more years down the [30:02] road. Lots to get to tonight. Stay with us. In 2017, the first time Donald Trump was president, when [30:16] Republicans had the White House and the Senate and the House of Representatives, do you know [30:21] what was the very first substantive piece of legislation they passed? They've got they've [30:27] just got full control. Republicans can do whatever they want. What is the very first thing that they're [30:34] going to do now that they've got full control in Washington? What's the first thing they did? [30:39] Their first piece of substantive legislation was a bill that made it easier specifically for [30:46] mentally ill people to buy guns. And this is not me being hyperbolic. I don't mean like, [30:53] oh, these people are crazy. No, I mean, no. In Trump's first term, the very first [30:58] substantive bill that Republicans passed with unified control of government was a bill that made it easier [31:04] for people to buy guns, specifically people who had been adjudicated to have a mental illness. [31:12] That was their number one legislative priority in the finite window when they had complete control of [31:18] the executive and legislative branches of government. That was the most important thing for them to get [31:24] done. It's very important that mentally ill people have more access to guns and bullets. [31:30] Well, now, of course, Donald Trump is back in the White House. He once again has unified control of [31:36] Congress, though this time they can't seem to get much of anything passed. So now Trump is not [31:42] bothering Congress again to address what still appears to be his number one priority, but he is [31:48] still working on this matter. And this time he's going even further. Quote, the Trump administration [31:54] is scrapping more than three dozen firearms regulations, abandoning a crackdown on illegal sales, [31:59] loosening oversight of private weapons transactions, and, oh, one more thing, quote, restoring gun rights [32:07] to some people with mental illness. For real. He's actually doing this again right now, trying to [32:15] take this further, prioritizing and taking government action specifically, not as like a washover effect, [32:22] not as an unintended consequence, but deliberately and on purpose and specifically to ensure that [32:27] mentally ill people can have access to firearms and ammunition. This is what's most important to you. [32:34] This is your priority. The mentally ill aren't well armed enough in America. In a sane, forgive me, [32:44] world, every Republican in the country would be asked about this every time they show their faces in [32:49] public. More ahead on this. Stay with us. In his first term, Trump and the Republican Congress, [33:02] as their first act of business, passed a law to make it easier for mentally ill people to buy guns. [33:10] Now that he's back in office for a second term, he is taking executive action to roll back a regulation [33:16] that will make it possible for even more people with adjudicated mental illness to access firearms [33:22] and ammunition. This, seriously. The second time around, Trump's own administration studied the [33:30] consequences of rolling back this regulation. In their study, they found, they actually wrote down [33:36] that making it easier for more mentally ill people to buy guns will increase the risk to public safety, [33:42] quote, up to and including potential mass casualty events. They determined that the Trump [33:49] administration determined that that would be the effect, and then they decided to do it anyway. [33:54] Joining us now is Mariana Mitchum. She is the former associate assistant director at the Bureau of [34:00] Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, where she worked for 20 years. She quit last year when the [34:05] Trump administration started rolling back gun safety measures. She's now the senior industry [34:09] advisor with Everytown for Gun Safety. Ms. Mitchum, thanks very much for taking time to be here tonight. [34:14] I appreciate it. [34:15] Yeah, thank you so much for having me. [34:17] What goes into that kind of analysis? The Trump administration itself says [34:23] this kind of change will lead to more mass casualty events. They are nevertheless doing it anyway. [34:29] What kind of — what do they study in order to make that sort of a determination about the [34:34] likelihood of the impact of this kind of regulation change? [34:38] Yeah, unfortunately, I can't tell you what exactly went into this study since [34:43] I am no longer at ATF, but I can tell you what we used to do when I was there previously. [34:48] We made some very important regulatory changes under the previous administration. [34:53] And in all of those changes, we always had an eye towards public safety. We must always ensure that no [35:00] harm will be caused to the public when making these changes. It seems like that wasn't the same [35:08] process this go-around with these 30 proposed regulatory changes. [35:12] And this one about mental illness is one of them. Taking the larger group as a whole, as you say, [35:22] some 30 regulatory changes that they're making all at once, what should we, as Americans, as the public, [35:28] expect will be the practical impact of these changes that they're imposing? [35:34] Yeah, unfortunately, we really have to look at these 30 regulatory changes together, right? [35:40] Don't look at each individual one in a vacuum because they are intended to work together. They [35:45] are layered upon each other. And some of the biggest things that I want to draw everyone's attention to [35:50] are the changes to non-over-the-counter sales. Right now, any individual in this country, [35:56] in every single state, it does not matter where you live, if you want to purchase a firearm, [36:01] you have to do it in person. You actually have to go into the gun store, you have to fill out paperwork, [36:08] and most often have to complete an on-site point-of-sale background check. These proposed [36:14] regulatory changes are looking to completely wipe that out. They would allow for mail order sales. So [36:21] individuals could sit within the comfort of their home and purchase a firearm 100% online. They do [36:28] have in the proposed changes, they have some information that they claim will ensure that the [36:36] person who is purchasing the firearm is who they claim to be and is not prohibited. Unfortunately, [36:43] there's really no way to do that, right? With the technology that's out there, it's very easy to [36:48] produce fake documents, to have a fake Zoom call where you are pretending to be someone that you [36:56] actually are not. And unfortunately, spending 20 years regulating the industry, I always found [37:02] that the gun store was actually the best and first line of defense in stopping dangerous people, [37:10] criminals, and juveniles from obtaining weapons. And this non-over-the-counter change will [37:16] completely eliminate their ability to stop those transactions. [37:20] That's stunning. Marianna Mitchum, formerly with the ATF, now Senior Industry Advisor with [37:28] Everytown for Gun Safety. I really appreciate you being here to help us understand this. As these [37:32] things roll out, I think we're going to need a lot more public education about what this means. I'd [37:36] love to have you back to talk about it again. I would love to do that. I'd be honored to do that. [37:40] I want to make sure that the public is aware of just how dangerous these things are, because [37:45] at the end of the day, we should all be aiming to make sure that we are protecting each other, [37:49] protecting our children, and making sure that dangerous people do not have access to firearms. [37:54] JUDY WOODRUFF, Marianna Mitchum, thank you so much. I appreciate it. [37:57] All right. We'll be right back. Stay with us. [37:59] So, here's the lead, Wall Street Journal. [38:06] In the hours after the U.S. secured its first victory in a World Cup knockout match in more than [38:11] 20 years, the mood inside the White House was anything but celebratory. [38:15] The game had been marred by a controversial red card for the Americans' top scorer at this tournament, [38:20] and it meant he would be automatically suspended for the next match. [38:24] The president instructed his team to find a way to lift the suspension. [38:30] As U.S. soccer publicly bemoaned that it had no recourse to appeal the red card decision, [38:35] Trump picked up the phone. He urged FIFA's president to review the call. [38:42] However you feel, if you feel anything at all, however you feel about the suspension [38:48] and reinstatement of this star striker on the U.S. men's national soccer team, [38:54] it's interesting. President Donald Trump seems uncharacteristically unsure about whether he [39:00] should be taking credit for doing what he did. He spent a long time today telling reporters he knew [39:05] this call should be overturned because he understands sports really well, literally said that, while he [39:11] also admitted that he only just learned what a red card is last week. And so while he wants everybody to [39:18] know that he picked up that phone and made that call to the FIFA president, he also seems to [39:23] understand that it might not be a good thing for the whole world, including American soccer fans, [39:30] to see that the American president has corrupted the World Cup by calling the president of FIFA [39:36] and demanding and getting special favors and special treatment for the U.S. team. I mean, [39:41] no matter what the team does, no matter how much they don't deserve it, what he has done will brand [39:48] the U.S. as undeserving, right, as having received treatment that they didn't warrant, as effectively [39:56] cheaters. Even though they didn't do anything to deserve that label, he did. The president said [40:03] repeatedly today that all he did was ask for a review, that he didn't order FIFA to do anything. [40:11] It's almost like even this president knows this story might sound better if it had less of him [40:16] in it. Joining us now is Natalie Andrews. She is White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. [40:21] She's part of the reporting team behind this incredible story inside the White House campaign [40:26] to overturn a World Cup red card. It is a dystopian headline. Natalie Andrews, thank you so much for [40:33] your reporting and for being here tonight. I appreciate it. Thanks. Yes. [40:37] My sense is that President Trump, in sort of an uncharacteristic way, [40:44] kind of both wants credit and doesn't want credit for what happened here. Does that sort of track [40:49] with your reporting and what you're seeing from the White House? I know in talking to folks inside [40:55] the White House yesterday, they were very excited that this was the direction that this had happened. [41:01] They were seeing this as a win. It was exciting. Trump posted yesterday. But his [41:05] comments today, yes, he wanted everyone to know. He didn't ask specifically. He didn't make the direct [41:11] ask. But we know that his team that he assembled after the red card went down, after the U.S. game, [41:19] he assembled a team to look into this. And he—and it was led by Andrew Giuliani, who's leading the [41:26] World Cup for the U.S., and the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, was there as well. They assembled lawyers [41:32] who have tied loyal—who are loyal to the president. And they assembled—they discussed and kind of went [41:39] behind the scenes all week on how could they mount a challenge? How could they present this to FIFA in [41:45] the best way? Tapping a Giuliani to overturn the results. Who could have possibly seen that this [41:52] might have ended up going the wrong way? One of the—one of the things that was, [41:59] I thought, very interesting in your reporting was when you and your colleagues wrote that the White [42:02] House thought they could—or knew, in your words, that they could count on a willing ally in FIFA's [42:09] president. Can you just unpack that for us and explain that a little bit? [42:11] AMY GOODMAN, The relationship between Trump and Infantino has been one of the more interesting [42:19] bonds that have come out of the second Trump administration. He's popped up at the White [42:24] House on days that have nothing to do with soccer. He was at the UFC fight on Trump's birthday. He was [42:32] also at the peace signing that Trump did in Egypt. He's—Trump has called him the king of soccer, [42:39] and Infantino invented the FIFA Peace Prize and gave it to the president. So they do have this [42:46] relationship. They've been known to talk on the phone. They have really formed a bond as the World [42:51] Cup has been playing—as they've been preparing for the World Cup. [42:54] AMY GOODMAN, Natalie Andrews, White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. [42:59] I really appreciate you being here to help us understand this still developing story. I appreciate it. [43:03] AMY GOODMAN, Any time. [43:04] AMY GOODMAN, Thank you. All right. We'll be right back. Stay with us. [43:08] AMY GOODMAN, So, surprise. Here's a development in a story we have [43:19] followed super closely over the course of the last year. As you know, the Trump administration had [43:24] this plan to build all these gigantic Trump prison camps all over the country. They spent over a [43:31] billion dollars on these huge warehouses, buying up huge warehouse facilities all over the country, [43:36] and they were going to use them to lock up tens of thousands of people. Huge Trump prison camps. [43:42] Some of them would have been among the biggest prisons in the world, all to hold people without trial. [43:50] After ferocious resistance to these facilities from basically every town all across the country where [43:55] they wanted to put one, we got reporting last month that the Trump administration has now [44:01] abandoned this idea. They are pulling back from almost all of them. They bought 11 of these warehouse [44:07] facilities. And the reporting, first in The New York Times, was that at least seven of the 11 warehouses [44:12] they bought, they're now planning to either resell them or repurpose them for some other government [44:19] use. But they're not going to make them into these gigantic Trump prison camps after all. [44:24] So, of the 11 they bought, seven of them to be resold or repurposed. [44:29] But then what about the other four, right? That would leave four of these prison camps that they're [44:36] still apparently going forward with. Well, one of those we have an update on. One of those was a [44:42] facility in Surprise, Arizona. That is the name of the place, Surprise. And there, like many of these [44:50] places where these things were going to be cited, we have seen ardent and intense and dedicated local [44:56] pushback. Early on, more than a thousand people showing up to a Surprise, Arizona City Council meeting [45:03] to say, no, they do not want this. The pushback has gone so far as a dramatic proposal from local [45:10] residents in Surprise that their city government should be dissolved altogether. Because if their [45:16] local government can't be counted on to fight hard enough against this Trump prison camp, [45:20] these activists in the town, people who live in the town, are proposing that they should [45:24] disincorporate Surprise, Arizona to get those local leaders out of the way, because maybe the county [45:31] where they are. Maricopa County in Arizona will help them fight. [45:36] That said, the Democratic-run state government in Arizona has been an ally to those locals, [45:41] in Surprise, helping them push back. Arizona's attorney general, Chris Mayes, [45:45] filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from building this thing. [45:49] Arizona's two U.S. Democratic senators are very much trying to associate themselves with the fight [45:55] against the prison, which is a sure sign that the people fighting against the prison are on the right [46:00] side, and they're going to win. Here's Senator Ruben Gallego with some of the young people, [46:04] some of the high school kids who have been fighting against this thing. Their school would [46:07] be just blocks away from this huge prison camp. Just today, we got a statement from Senator Mark [46:13] Kelly's office congratulating the people of Surprise, Arizona, particularly the young people [46:19] in Surprise, Arizona, for how hard they have been fighting against this prison camp, commending [46:25] their work to stop this camp, stop this thing. Senator Kelly told us today, quote, [46:29] when people stand up for their community, they can make a real difference. [46:34] So we've seen this huge pushback, pushback dramatic enough that they're willing to dissolve their town [46:40] in order to fight back more fiercely against this thing. We've got the two U.S. senators in Arizona [46:46] now saying we are on the side of the people who are fighting this thing. We've got the Democratic-led [46:51] state government in Arizona saying we are fighting this thing, and they brought this lawsuit. And now, [46:58] even though this was one of the four remaining places where the Trump administration was still [47:03] supposedly going to push ahead with one of these giant prison camps, it looks like it has now been [47:09] stopped. It looks like the Surprise, Arizona prison camp has been stopped, at least for the foreseeable [47:14] future. Arizona Attorney General Chris Mayes now says the state has reached a legal agreement [47:20] with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that will halt any construction, will halt construction [47:26] on building this out into a prison until an environmental review is completed. And while [47:33] that might sound like a temporary halt, you should know that those environmental reviews, everybody [47:38] admits, can take years. Pushback. Pushback works. Doesn't always work, but it's the only thing that does. [47:48] Watch this space.